Law and Magic Blog

Netolitzky on Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments as Magic and Ceremony

ICYMI: Donald J. Netolitzky, Court's Complex Litigant Management Counsel, Court of Queen's Bench, Alberta, has published Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments as Magic and Ceremony at 55 Alberta Law Review 1045 (2018). Here is the abstract.

 

This article discusses ways in which Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) litigants use pseudolegal concepts, techniques, and procedures before the courts. The author begins by looking at where OPCA legal arguments originate, and the historical sources where these arguments find grounding, while assessing the flaws in such. A thorough analysis is then conducted into some of the tactics used by OPCA litigants in order to evade legal consequences, including a survey of global case law where these arguments have been brought before the courts. The article culminates with an analysis of the implications of the use of pseudolaw by OPCA litigants and how tactics permeate through OPCA movements, while looking for solutions in dealing with OPCA litigants as they move through the courts.

Jeffrey Cowan, Magician/Lawyer @ABAJournal

The June 2019 issue of the ABA Journal features Jeffrey Cowan of The Cowan Law Firm, a magician/lawyer based in Santa Monica, CA. Mr. Cowan discusses his love for magic, his early career in the field, including the first book he published, the problems that patent law poses for magicians who want to protect their secrets (we've discussed patents, trademarks, and copyrights elsewhere on this blog--check under Intellectual Property in the index), and the intersection between practicing magic and practicing law (also a topic we've discussed at the Law and Magic Blog--check under Law and Magic). A great read.

Congratulations to The Amazing Jeff on his appearance in the ABA Journal!

 

ICYMI: Huvelin, Magie et droit individuel

ICYMI:  P. Huvelin, Magie et droit individuel, 10 L'Annee sociologique 1-47 (1905).

ICYMI: Huvelin on Les tablettes magiques et le droit romain

ICYMI: Henri Huvelin  Les tablettes magiques et le droit romain, 10 Annales internationales d’histoire 1–66 )1901).

 

 

de Sutter, On the Magic of Law

Laurent de Sutter, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium, has published On the Magic of Law at 21 Law/Text/Culture 123 (2017). 

Here is the abstract.

This essay focuses on a forgotten and ill-reputed category, long used by anthropologists and historians to describe the origins of law: the category of “magic.” At the end of the 19th century, many scholars found in the idea of “magic” something that could explain why some sort of a necessity could be attached to certain actions, paroles or rituals from which concrete, practical effects were expected in “primitive” societies. “Magic” was a concept embodying a complete theory of performance, and of the necessity of the consequences produced by this performance, that seemed to some of those scholars capable of explaining why necessity and performance were also legal features. Yet, after World War II, the positivist school of legal historians chose to discard this explanation, and to forget all about the possible links between law and magic. By re-reading the work of Paul Huvelin, a forgotten French legal historian close to the circles of Emile Durkheim, I would like to claim that this gesture was rather a form of foreclosure – foreclosure of the fact that law might very well be the last form of magic in a world that refuses to admit its existence. Of course, the whole question is: Which magic? How magic? Why magic? These are the questions that the essay tries to answer.

Riddell on Matthew Hale and Witchcraft

ICYMI:

 

William Renwick Riddell, Sir Matthew Hale and Witchcraft, 17 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 5 (1926/1927).

 

Magical Availments and California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.50

Via my friend Ken Trombly, this 2016 case in the civil procedure area, involving dueling magicians:

 

Calvert v. Wolf, 2016 WL 396520 (not officially published), Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California, filed Jan. 29, 2016.  In this case, professional magicians John and Tammy Calvert  entered into an agreement with Randall Wolf, an Ohio surgeon, to sell Dr. Wolf the Calverts' show, "Magicarama." As part of the agreement, the Calverts also agreed to teach Dr. Wolf the illusions associated with the show, and contemplated that California might be where the training might take place.

In May, 2013, the Calverts filed a complaint against Wolf, alleging breach of contract among other things. They said they had not only delivered the show (in 2008), but had taught him (and his family) the tricks necessary at the Magic Castle on three separate occasions. Wolf "quash the service of summons on the grounds the court lacks personal jurisdiction over Wolf and, alternatively, California is an inconvenient forum. In a supporting declaration, Wolf stated he has never done business in California and he owns no real or personal property in California." 

The argument in this case is over whether Randall Wolf has minimum contacts with the state of California sufficient that he should expect that a California court would agree to hear a dispute that involves him, like this breach of contract case.  The trial court agreed with him that he should not, ruling that "[The Calverts] . . . only showed a one-time purchase of a magic show and three trips to California for training purposes. This is a one-time transaction, and not on-going business dealings.'" 

But the appellate court found differently. "Based on the principles described above, California may exercise jurisdiction over Wolf only if the evidence shows (1) he purposefully availed himself of the benefits of the state, (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of Wolf's contacts with California, and (3) assertion of personal jurisdiction would not offend notions of fair play and substantial justice. (See Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 269.) We conclude specific jurisdiction exists in this case."

First, the court found that Wolf had purposefully availed himself of "the privilege of conducting activities within California by voluntarily traveling to the Magic Castle...". Further, the Calvert v. Wolf lawsuit was based "on a contract which had substantial connection with the state...".  

Next, the court noted that California has "adopted a 'substantial connection' test" which allows a court to determine that it can find minimum contacts if there is a substantial connection between the defendant's activities in the forum and the plaintiff's claim (Wolf's visits and his training in the illusions necessary to operate the magic show). 

Finally, the court examined whether the plaintiffs' request that the court assert jurisdiction was fair to the parties. "The evidence shows Wolf voluntarily came to California on at least three occasions to learn Magicarama. Further, he sought membership with the Magic Castle, which is located in California. These facts do not suggest it would be unfair or unreasonable for a California court to exercise jurisdiction over Wolf in a lawsuit related to the purchase of Magicarama. Therefore, we conclude Wolf is subject to specific jurisdiction in California."

NB: Mr. Calvert passed away in September 2013 at the age of 102.

Interestingly, John Rutherford Browne, III, attorney for the Calverts, is Past International President and present Legal Advisor of the International Brotherhood of Magicians. As "Fumblefingers the Astonishing," he is known (according to his bio) as one of California's least annoying magicians. 

 

 

 

 

ICYMI: Droit et Surnaturel (Law and the Supernatural), edited by Jean-Christophe Roda @librarieLGDJ @jc_roda

For the bookshelf (ICYMI):

 

Droit et surnaturel (Jean-Christophe Roda, ed., L.G.D.J., 2015) (Grands colloques). Includes Nicolas Bronzo,  Enchantements et (dés)illusions : la magie et la propriété intellectuelle. 

De Sutter on the Magic of Law @KYAlbrecht @ArsScripta

Laurent de Sutter, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium, has published On the Magic of Law at 21 Law Text Culture 123 (2017). Here is the abstract. 

This essay focuses on a forgotten and ill-reputed category, long used by anthropologists and historians to describe the origins of law: the category of “magic.” At the end of the 19th century, many scholars found in the idea of “magic” something that could explain why some sort of a necessity could be attached to certain actions, paroles or rituals from which concrete, practical effects were expected in “primitive” societies. “Magic” was a concept embodying a complete theory of performance, and of the necessity of the consequences produced by this performance, that seemed to some of those scholars capable of explaining why necessity and performance were also legal features. Yet, after World War II, the positivist school of legal historians chose to discard this explanation, and to forget all about the possible links between law and magic. By re-reading the work of Paul Huvelin, a forgotten French legal historian close to the circles of Emile Durkheim, I would like to claim that this gesture was rather a form of foreclosure – foreclosure of the fact that law might very well be the last form of magic in a world that refuses to admit its existence. Of course, the whole question is: Which magic? How magic? Why magic? These are the questions that the essay tries to answer.

 Download the article from the publisher's website at the link.

See also Jessie Allen's work on the legal realists, including Jessie Allen, Magical Realism, Law and Magic: A Collection of Essays, Christine A. Corcos, ed. (2010, Carolina Academic Press).  

Mateusz and Mateusz on The Relationship Between Law and Magic: Preliminary Remarks

ICYMI:

 

Pękala Mateusz and Stępień Mateusz, The Relationshiop Between Law and Magic: Preliminary Remarks, in Towards An Anthropology of the Legal Field: Critiques and Case Studies (T. Ledvinka, Prague: 2012), at 24-34. Here's the text of the first paragraph (footnote omitted).

 

Both law and magic are very important topics of anthropological research. However, despite its dynamic development and impressive achievements during the 20th century, anthropology of law would appear to be marginalized largely due to its failure to propose a coherent, complex anthropological theory of legal phenomena. This despite the fact that the study of magic remains one of the most important and heavily discussed anthropological issues today. There is no doubt that the way in which anthropologists perceive magic has changed, but their interest in magic-related topics remains. There are two main reasons for the lack of comprehensive analyses of the relationship between magic and (modern) law: Firstly, the creeping crisis of legal anthropology; and secondly, the flourishing of new topics in the study of magic (changes in magical practices, re-enchantment processes in the West).